Efficacy of Supplemental Phonics-Based Instruction for Low-Skilled Kindergarteners in the Context of Language Minority Status and Classroom Phonics Instruction
Vadasy, Patricia F.; Sanders, Elizabeth A. (2010). Journal of Educational Psychology, v102 n4 p786-803 Nov 2010. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ910429
-
examining148Students, gradeK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Supplemental phonics instruction - Vadasy & Sanders (2010))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised/Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU) Word Attack and Word Identification subtests |
Supplemental phonics instruction - Vadasy & Sanders (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
110.41 |
103.03 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R) Spelling subtest |
Supplemental phonics instruction - Vadasy & Sanders (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
67.13 |
45.51 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP): Total Phonological Awareness |
Supplemental phonics instruction - Vadasy & Sanders (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
93.27 |
90.67 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test - Revised/Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU) Word Attack and Word Identification subtests |
Supplemental phonics instruction - Vadasy & Sanders (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students whose home language was not English;
|
108.83 |
103.17 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R) Spelling subtest |
Supplemental phonics instruction - Vadasy & Sanders (2010) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students whose home language was not English;
|
59.05 |
45.98 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 45%
Male: 55% -
Urban
-
Race Asian 20% Black 23% Other or unknown 43% White 14% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 40% Not Hispanic or Latino 60% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 82% No FRPL 18%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 24 kindergarten classrooms within 10 urban public elementary schools in two school districts.
Study sample
All students in the study were in kindergarten and had low scores on screening assessments of alphabetic knowledge and phonological awareness. Specifically, among students with parental consent for the study, the study included those whose screening assessment score was in the bottom half among students in the same classroom and home language group (language minority, meaning their home language was other than English, or non-language minority, meaning their home language was English). Fifty-seven percent of students in the study were language minority students, and three percent received special education. Of the 148 students in the study, 67 were in the intervention group and 81 were assigned to the comparison group.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention condition received individual, supplemental phonics-based tutoring delivered by trained paraeducators during the school day. The tutoring centered around 70 scripted lessons that covered letter-sound correspondences, decoding, spelling, and oral reading practice. Lessons included: practicing identifying letters, blending words, recognizing orally blended words and reading aloud; irregular word introduction; and saying the alphabet. Tutoring sessions were designed to last 30 minutes and occur 4 days per week for 18 weeks. Students in the study actually received, on average, 55 tutoring sessions that covered 65 lessons over the course of one semester.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction.
Support for implementation
Paraeducators initially received two hours of training focused on the lesson activities and strategies for correcting student errors and received a follow-up training during the intervention. Paraeducators with less experience or who were observed to implement the intervention less faithfully received an average of one hour of additional coaching during the intervention. The research team conducted observations to assess fidelity.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Vadasy, Patricia F.; Sanders, Elizabeth A. (2012). Two-Year Follow-Up of a Kindergarten Phonics Intervention for English Learners and Native English Speakers: Contextualizing Treatment Impacts by Classroom Literacy Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, v104 n4 p987-1005.
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Supplemental phonics instruction—Vadasy and Sanders (2010))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wide Range Achievement Test - Revised (WRAT-R): Words spelled |
Supplemental phonics instruction—Vadasy and Sanders (2010) vs. Business as usual |
18 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
77.58 |
44.89 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Alphabetics |
Supplemental phonics instruction—Vadasy and Sanders (2010) vs. Business as usual |
18 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
47.98 |
35.80 |
Yes |
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Urban
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 24 kindergarten classrooms from a total of 10 Title I public elementary schools. The location is unspecified, however, US location is assumed.
Study sample
The participating schools had student enrollment of 85% minority, 75% free or reduced lunch, 33% bilingual, and 18% special education. The 23 paraeducators were mostly nonminority (74%) and female (83%). Tutors were between the ages of 18 and 55 years and the modal level of education was a bachelor's degree. The mean paraeducator tutoring experience was 4.52 years and most paraeducators (72%) had at least one year of experience working with early grade levels.
Intervention Group
Paraeducators provided individual tutoring to students using the Sound Partners model. The tutoring sessions had 20 minutes of instruction on letter–sound correspondence, segmenting and blending phonemes, word reading, spelling, and irregular words. The final 10 minutes of each session was spent on assisted oral reading practice. The intervention involved 30-minute sessions 4 times a week for 18 weeks.
Comparison Group
Teachers taught their regular lessons.
Support for implementation
The researches provided the paraeducators with an initial 2-hr training session. Through the course of this training session, researchers described each lesson activity and model paraeducator/student behaviors, errors, and error correction strategies. Trainees were paired together to practice these techniques while the trainers provided feedback. Follow-up training was provided throughout the duration of the intervention. This additional training included added coaching for those paraeducators with less experience or low intervention fidelity ratings. On average, these paraeducators received 1 additional hour of follow up tutoring (range: 0.5 to 3.0 hr).
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).